STTPML Collective on 9-11
We at STTPML, as Indigenous veterans of the U.S. military and/or government service, include amongst us experienced pilots and instructors as well as investigators. We know from experience, that even if a small Cessna 150 or a homebuilt crashes, there will be a NTSB investigation that may wind-up in the millions of dollars depending upon the circumstances. Why? Because simply causes and contributing conditions need to be established, lessons need to be learned, to save lives in the present and the future. It is that simple.
What are we to think then, when there is an unprecedented and highly coordinated terrorist attack, involving four coordinated hijackings and unprecedented breaches of airport security, the first of its kind on U.S. soil (Hawaii was not a U.S. state and thus not fully illegally annexed), with unprecedented losses of lives and property, and yet the Bush Administration refuses an independent and comprehensive (no-fear-no-favor) investigation of any kind? What are we to think when an investigation is finally ordered, due to the activism of some of the families of the victims of 9-11 attacks, only an initial $14 million, later expanded to $44 million (less than 1/2 of that spent on Clinton’s abuses of power and hypocrisy)? What are we to think that the first chairman of the proposed 9-11 Commission was Henry Kissinger who withdrew his name, from his office, when one of the “Jersey Girls” widows of 9-11 victims asked him if his firm had any clients with the last name bin Laden?
We do not deal in “conspiracy theories” except in the search for conspiracy facts. That conspiracies really do exist in many places we know from experience, the fact that there are laws against various forms of conspiracy (Title 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242,…) and many people in jail, some former congressmen, judges, lawyers, police, convicted of being elements of them. Conspiracy, from the Latin to “breathe together”, means simply: a) two or more persons; b) forming a common plan to pursue objectives and engage in activities they know or the law assumes they should know, to be criminal and illegal; c) taking at least one affirmative step in furtherance of the common plan and its objectives (the plan may not have to be completed only one material step in its furtherance); d) revealing intent or mens rea and coordination of the participants may be established with pattern and network analyses, hearsay rule exceptions absent outright confessions (circumstantial evidence); e) statutes of limitations apply to termination of the common plan efforts not when objectives are completed;
We know from experience that there is no need to cover-up what is clean only what is dirty or what one thinks is dirty or problematic. There is no need to fear, but only to welcome, a full, comprehensive, fully-funded, no-fear-no-favor and competent impartial investigation of the real facts of 9-11 and take it from there; if indeed one is really concerned with the full impacts and implications of 9-11 to prevent future ones and bring justice to the myriad victims. There is no fear going to paper or signing one’s name if one thinks their cause and case is just and legal; only fear when they fear the cause and case is not. There is no need to fear testimony under oath and penalties of perjury if one truly thinks that he or she is speaking or writing the truth as best as he or she knows it or concludes it to be.
So who, and for what reasons, would oppose such an investigation? And why, when they did appoint a grossly under-funded “9-11” Commission did they put on it some of those with direct and material conflicts-of-interests in terms of their past positions and responsibilities and early facts that established missed opportunities under their watch that were part of the road to 9-11?
For full disclosure, some of us are members of the groups Pilots, Scholars, Veterans for 9-11 Truth none of which advance any particular theory as to what, how, who, when, for what agenda, was/were involved with 9-11 and the aftermath. We do not know or pretend to know how 9-11 happened and who was really involved and with what agenda. That is what proper investigations are for. But it is more than disingenuous when those who have blocked a full and fair investigation then claim the matter is settled and anyone who has any more questions is some kind of “conspiracy theorist” and even potential terrorist according to the FBI https://sttpml.org/fbi-calls-half-of-populace-with-911-doubts-potential-terrorists/ and http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/perp-walking-myself/
But the implications are far reaching as we can see just from every flight we take at the airport. They are also evident in the passing of the “PATRIOT ACT” that was passed as fast, as the Nazi Enabling Act that it closely copied and was passed as an emergency response to the burning of the Reichstag which we now know was engineered by Goebbels and Goering (who had manipulated a disabled Dutch anarchist to setting his own little fire as a trigger for the larger one already planned and prepared for). That is why we simply call for a full, fair, impartial, competent, transparent, accountable and no-fear-no-favor investigation of 9-11 and its aftermath.
Movement to Declassify 9/11 Information Gathers Momentum: The Top NSA Whistleblower Binney SPEAKS OUT
9/11 Commission Chairs, Congressmen and Intelligence Officers All Call for Declassification
The 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs – Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean – have called for the 28-page section of the 9/11 Commission Report which is classified to be declassified. Kean said that 60-70% of what was classified shouldn’t have been classified in the first place:
Congressman Thomas Massie read the 28 classified pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9/11 (the joint Senate and House investigation into 9/11) and immediately called for them to be released to the public:
A bipartisan bill – introduced by congressmen Walter B. Jones (Republican from North Carolina) and
Stephen Lynch (Democrat from Massachusetts) – would declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which implicate the Saudi government.
Former Congressman Ron Paul is also demanding the 28 pages be declassified:
The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham –
and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Senator Graham said that he’s lobbied Obama for years to release the 28 pages and to reopen the investigation, but Obama has refused. The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 investigator has even resorted to filing Freedom of Information requests to obtain information, but the Obama administration is still stonewalling:
Graham said that like the 28 pages in the 9/11 inquiry, the Sarasota case is being “covered up” by U.S. intelligence. Graham has been fighting to get the FBI to release the details of this investigation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. But so far the bureau has stalled and stonewalled, he said.
And high-level former NSA official Thomas Drake provided testimony to the 9/11 investigations documenting that the “official story” of 9/11 makes little sense, as the intelligence agencies had all of the information they needed to stop it. Drake’s testimony has – for no real reason – been classified.
Drake is seeking to declassify his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:
I would argue for declassification and release because the 9/11 Commission asked for it in the public interest, my testimony was given to Congress via testimony (oral and written) to investigators as a material witness and whistleblower, because of NSA’s coverup of its accountability for 9/11, and the coverup committed by NSA to obstruct official Congressional investigations, plus declassification is timely in terms of ongoing efforts to reform NSA by Congress and the President.
I do know that my testimony and evidence was fully suppressed and censored as a deep state secret – so secret that it was not included in the classified report of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry.
Still Urgent Today
Ancient history, you say?
Graham notes:
Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.
As Graham told told PBS:
We need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat thatthe people of the United States are facing today.
Postscript: People may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Iraqi state sponsorship of 9/11 was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.
But 70% of the American public believed it at the time, and 85% of U.S. troops believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”
Only last year, John Glaser noted:
Significant portions of Americans still believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and cooperated in the 9/11 attacks. The reason is simple: the administration told them this lie.
An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.
Keeping this lie afloat took some work. The Bush administration, primarily Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, “applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime,” McClatchy reported in 2009.
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Bush’s Secretary of State Powell, “the administration authorized harsh interrogation” in 2002, and “its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”
Wilkerson is right.
Top NSA Whistleblower: We Need a New 9/11 Investigation Into the Destruction of the World Trade Center
The Observable Facts Were Ignored …
Bill Binney is the NSA’s former senior technical director, 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, one of the world’s top crypto-mathematicians, who managed thousands of employees at the agency.
Binney was the original NSA whistleblower, and one of two NSA veterans whose example inspired Edward Snowden.
Binney recently signed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s petition, stating:
There is clearly evidence that needs to be considered in a review of what happened in 9/11. We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened.
Two days ago, Binney said in an interview that speaking with physicists and controlled demolition experts convinced him that the investigations to date have – at best – been incompetent, and failed to address the observable facts:
Binney said:
They felt they had to have something drastic happen so they could get a lot more money and build up an empire and do the things they wanted to do.
Washington’s Blog asked Binney what he meant by that statement, and he explained:
I had several reasons for saying that. First, Gen Minihan when he was Dirnsa [Director of the National Intelligence Agency] was internally in NSA quoted to say that we will have to have a drastic event occur before we could change the way we were doing things. Then Hayden took over as Dirnsa.
And, on 27 February 2001 he or someone from NSA approached the CEO of Quest requesting Quests’ subscriber data – meaning billing data. This is in court records. [Background here, here and here.]
This all smacked of waiting for something to happen so they could leverage it to do what they really wanted to do – which was evidenced by the request to Quest.
Also, I would add that the 9/11 Commission left out data that Tom Drake passed to them showing vital data prior to 11 Sep giving warning of an attack. This should also not be acceptable. [Background.]
Binney joins many high-level officials – including military leaders, intelligence officials and 9/11 commissioners – who are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations to date.
For background on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, watch this C-Span interview and this documentary.
Postscript: Government officials agree that 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism … they just disagree on which state was responsible.
We care enough about sports to review ‘official’ calls, but not to review ‘official’ calls of ‘lawful’ wars?!?
If Americans applied their passion and expertise in sports laws to current US/UK/Israel/UN wars, the resultant outrage would quickly cause “leaders’” arrests for obvious unlawful Wars of Aggression.
We care, appropriately, that sports law be reviewed for proper calls on the field of play. Examples include tennis, baseball, and football. The illegality of all current wars are easily proved by reviewing war law on that field: military armed attack is unlawful unless in response to military attack from another nation’s government.
Americans continue an Emperor’s New Clothes-like awakening that the UN Charter and US Constitution limits have long been rejected by our “leaders’” preference for dictatorial power. In this one area of law to limit governments from war-murders, it’s easy to explain and prove that US/UK/Israel armed attacks are OBVIOUS unlawful Wars of Aggression:
1. The UN Charter is an active treaty. It’s one and only area of legal authority is to prevent Wars of Aggression.
2. Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy can never violate it.
3. Therefore, the UN Charter is US “supreme Law” to never use military armed attacks upon a nation in all cases except a narrow definition of “self-defense”: when another nation’s government attacks first.
4. The UK and Israel ratified the UN Charter over 60 years ago in agreement to its limits of armed attacks.
5. The still-active treaty after WW1, the Kellogg-Briand Pact is even stronger in language to forbid nations to ever use armed attack as national policy.
When US “leaders” egregiously violate almost every single limit to power within the Constitution, including crystal-clear treaty limits meant to prevent exactly the wars we see today, Americans can confidently declare “official” calls are absolutely wrong.
Those of us with Oaths to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” are honor-bound to expose and end these Orwellian crimes. We invite all interested to:
1. Realize our Emperor’s New Clothes position,
2. State the OBVIOUS fact that US “leaders” are War Criminals engaged in Wars of Aggression (and UK,Israel, and other former imperial-power-crazed governments),
3. Demand arrests as lawful response to restore those explicit limits to government power, stop the War Crimes, and prevent further war-murders.
Further evidence to support public demand for lawful arrests to stop the biggest crime on Earth (among~100 crucial areas of crimes):
1. People around the world view the US as the greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country.
2. The data confirm this conclusion: since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them.
3. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men.
4. The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.
5. US official reports now confirm all “reasons” the US told for current armed attacks were known to be false as they were told
6. These lie-started US wars are not even close to lawful (again: here, here, here, here).
7. US wars and rhetoric for more wars continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression. Themost decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for 1% plunder.
8. Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue in these actions to “create our own reality.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian
Immediately following the attacks, President George W. Bush stated that “nobody in our government at least, and I don’t the think the prior government, could envisage flying air planes into buildings” and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed no-one “could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile”. An Air Force general called the attack “something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of.”[1] Soon after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller announced “there were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”[2] However, Mueller noted that an FBI agent in Minneapolis said Moussaoui might be “that type of person that could fly something into the World Trade Center.”[3] Mueller said this warning should have been followed more vigorously.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories
http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/09/24/media-looked-past-9-11-commission-documentation/131925
While the media has focused in recent months on issues such as whether Senator John Kerry took fire while saving the life of a fellow swift boat crew member more than 30 years ago and whether President George W. Bush’s commanding officer wrote memos bearing his name, an issue of at least equal importance — whether the Bush administration lied to the 9-11 Commission and to the American people about the events of September 11 — has been almost completely ignored. *
In fact, were reporters to devote anything approaching the time and energy consumed by the disputed CBS memos to the 9-11 Commission’s conclusions, they would find strong evidence that the administration has misled the country regarding one of the most catastrophic days in our country’s history. In a review of the 9-11 Commission report in The New York Review of Books, regular contributor Elizabeth Drew noted several examples of Bush administration distortions and apparent lies, of which the report provides strong evidence. Following are two of the most flagrant.
Bush administration officials said no one could predict terrorists would use airplanes as missiles
As Slate.com has reported, several prominent Bush administration officials have asserted that there was no way the government could have known that terrorists would attempt to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, as they did at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. In May 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center”; then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer echoed Rice’s remarks: “Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.”
In her testimony before the 9-11 Commission, though, Rice retreated from her remarks, stating, “I probably should have said, ‘I could not have imagined'” such an occurrence, but she only conceded that she couldn’t promise that there “might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.”USA Today reported a similar remark by President Bush on April 18: “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” CNNnoted on March 24 that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Commission: “I knew of no intelligence during the six-plus months leading up to September 11 to indicate terrorists would hijack commercial airlines, use them as missiles to fly into the Pentagon or the World Trade Center towers.”
However, as the 9-11 Commission report documented, such a “possibility was imaginable, and imagined,” citing an August 1999 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Civil Aviation Security intelligence office report that warned on the potential of a “suicide hijacking operation,” and that the North American Aerospace Defense Command had “developed exercises to counter such a threat.” The commission reported that an August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” which was received by Bush, stated that although the FBI had “not been able to corroborate” a 1998 report that Osama bin Laden was seeking to “hijack a US aircraft,” “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
Just weeks before 9-11, the Commission report also noted, the Central Intelligence Agency warned British and French officials of “‘subjects involved in suspicious 747 flight training’ that described [Al Qaeda operative Zacarias] Moussaoui as a possible ‘suicide hijacker.'” And the week before the terrorist attacks, a Minneapolis FBI agent told the FAA that Moussaoui was “an Islamic extremist preparing for some future act in furtherance of radical fundamentalist goals” related to flight training he had received. The commission also documented that on August 23, 2001, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet “was briefed about the Moussaoui case in a briefing titled ‘Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.'”
The Bush administration’s claims of ignorance are cast into even greater doubt by a report that a hypothetical event resembling the actual events of September 11 was the subject of a military training exercise less than a year before 9-11. As United Press International documented, on October 24, 2000, the Pentagon ran a “mass casualty exercise, which simulated crisis response in a scenario where a hijacked aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.”
Cheney and Bush claimed Cheney received Bush’s approval to shoot down hijacked planes on 9-11
Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have maintained, and testified to the 9-11 Commission, that the order to shoot down airplanes hijacked by Al Qaeda on the morning of September 11 was authorized by the president himself. But the commission’s report indicated that the commission found no evidence to support such a claim based on the review of an array of documentary sources from that day.
The report noted Bush and Cheney’s account of the events in question: Cheney “stated that he called the President to discuss the rules of engagement” for shooting down the hijacked airplanes if they would not divert their path on the morning of September 11, Cheney “said the President signed off on that concept,” and “[t]he President said he remembered such a conversation.”
But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.” The report includes a caveat that “the relevant sources are incomplete,” but does not say specifically what information the commission lacked. The commission cited the following sources in reaching its conclusion that there was no evidence for Bush and Cheney’s claim: “(1) phone logs of the White House switchboard; (2) notes of Lewis Libby [Cheney’s chief of staff], Mrs. [Lynne] Cheney, and Ari Fleischer; (3) the tape (and then transcript) of the air threat conference call; and (4) Secret Service and White House Situation Room logs, as well as four separate White House Military Office logs (the PEOC Watch Log, the PEOC Shelter Log, the Communications Log, and the 9-11 Log).”
The report then noted that after Cheney twice ordered the “authorization to engage,” he called President Bush to obtain authorization at the behest of White House deputy chief of staff Joshua Bolten. According to the report, Bolten wanted Cheney to “confirm the engage order” and “make sure the President was told” Cheney had executed it, and Bolten “said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.” The hijacked planes crashed before the authorization order was put into effect.
Drew, in her New York Review of Books review, noted that in response to the commission’s suggestion that Cheney made the order without Bush’s authorization, “the White House reacted in a lengthy letter to the commission … propos[ing] substitute language that portrayed the President’s performance that morning in a more positive light.” And, she wrote that Cheney “made a vehement phone call to the chairman, Thomas Kean, and vice-chairman, Lee Hamilton, protesting the staff report’s implication that he had taken charge and ordered the planes shot down.” Despite the protests by the White House, Drew noted, the commission’s report maintained an account of the events that suggests Cheney, not Bush, made the order.
* An MMFA LexisNexis database search on September 24 of the “All News” directory for media coverage — after the 9-11 Commission report’s July 22 release — of Bush administration assertions that were contradicted by the evidence amassed in the report produced minimal results. Relevant results were defined as articles that note the inconsistencies between the Bush administration accounts and the 9-11 Commission report findings:
- A search for “rice and predict! and airplane and slam and world trade center and date is after July 20, 2004” produced six relevant results.
- A search for “Fleischer and imagine and airplanes as missiles and date is after July 20, 2004” produced zero relevant results.
- A search for “rice and I could not have imagined and date is after July 20, 2004” produced zero relevant results.
- A search for “Bush and envision flying airplanes into buildings and date is after July 20, 2004” produced zero relevant results.
- A search for “9/11 Commission and imaginable and imagined and date is after July 20, 2004” produced zero relevant results.
- A search for “cheney and (shoot /20 plane or airplane) or (rules of engagement) or (9/11 commission and documentary evidence and call) and date is after july 20, 2004” produced two relevant results.